If zero taxes would allow a company to hire more people, how many jobs did GE create?

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

More employment means more collectable income taxes. It's the corporate tax on the federal level that kills the jobs...there will still be a tax to pay to the state and local governments. That would put states in direct competition to lure business inside their borders...and competition is good for everyone involved.

__________________
1987 560SL
85,000 miles

I don't know the exact number. They did have a bunch of lawyers to figure out how to get that 'tax break'. If I remeber correctly that department has about 900 people. Now you could argue 'What do they add directly to their products?" Well then you'd be calling them a bunch of leaches. Not very nice of you.
I think the US has one of the highest corperate tax rates. But, when all the loop-polls are factored in, then the US is competative. Also, the US doesn't have the many payoffs or kick backs that other countires have.
Tom

I disagree. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure. If the masses do not have enough desposable income, then they will not spend, spend, spend. If no spendy-spendy, then no sales. No sales, no corperate profits. So the corps need to pay something. So do the rich, whoever that is. How much, is the question.
I'd say lower the tax rate, but cut out the loop polls. Warren Buffet is already making enough. If they can't compete and pay thier fair share, then they are worst then the wellfare bums.
Also, flat rate the import fees. At least have some sembelance of fair trade.
Tom

GE (including subsidiaries) lost jobs.

If taxes were limited to infrastructure creation and maintenance, what a wonderful world it would be!

About 15 years ago Oklahoma had a Republican Gov and a Dem ledge. The state also had a surplus equal to three years of the state's budget.

Republican lawmakers went nuts and blamed the Dems for this terrible outrage. They claimed that any surplus should be returned to the people and so it was. I can remember getting a rather large rebate or refund. It was referred to as both.

Now the state is about 40 million in the hole. And that is after cutting spending to the bone. The Republican answer to this problem here is to basically do nothing and to be fair about it doing nothing seems to be working out.

The economy is recovering here due to high oil prices (Oklahoma makes a lot of oil field equipment) and the Stimulus Funds from DC have paid for a few hundred million in road and bridge repairs. These repairs are important to the entire US since if you look at a map you will see that Oklahoma has important east-west and north-south links to the rest of the US. Unemployment here is 5.5% and the Governor is quick to admit they did nothing to bring this about. There is just a lot of work here to do and a population of only 3.5 million to do it.

I was hoping to stimulate some real discussion on this debt subject and it looks like that might have taken place. But I still like Nixon's approach to raising taxes since it was just so fair to everyone.

It was a tax-surcharge and I bet some of you can remember it. You figured up your taxes and then you paid another, I think, 2% on top of that. Yes, this raised everyone's taxes, but no group was singled out. If you made $500 a year then you paid taxes of about $60. Add 2% to that and you paid another $1.20, or really just $1 if you rounded.

If you made $12,000 then, which many professionals did, you paid about $1,500 in taxes with another $31 on top of that.

It worked then to pay for Veit-Nam and it could work now as it would be fair to everyone. Anyway, I think it could work.

Do you?

TX and OK are tied to the Oil Industry. I remeber some smaller sucker wells out there in the late 80's. I did see some of those in OH in the early 80's, and some in MO last year or so. They only pump when the prices are high. So, the rest of the country doesn't do as well when the oil prices are high. I rmeber the mid to late 80's, oil crashed. It was about $1 for a gal of gas. Tulsa was happy to get a toliet paper manufacturing plant. I think Austin was the only place in TX do well.
To an extent what tax you propose is a hydrid flat tax. I think to an extent it does have merit. Still, both sides need a dose of Reality. I do wonder how/if the Murdock fiasco will affect this debate or the out come.
Tom

Do you know how much they grew/declined in the years of not paying taxes? I'm not sure.

I have no idea about GE's ups and downs. I just heard that GE had something like 13K or 30K (hell, there was a '3' in it, okay?) layoffs since 2008.

GE is yet another example of the dangers of BIG business getting cozy with BIG government. That relationship thwarts free competition which is the only protection the consumer has.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

General Electric's overall work force fell by about 6 percent worldwide in 2009 as it struggled to deal with the effects of the deep recession and financial crisis, according to a company regulatory filing 2010.

GE's 2009 annual report shows the industrial and financial heavyweight reduced its overall employee head count by about 19,000 jobs to 304,000 workers. It's the second year in a row that jobs have fallen at one of the world's largest companies after several years of job growth earlier in the decade.

Excluding 16,000 jobs that came on the company's rolls last year when it took a majority stake in a Central American bank, GE's work force fell by 35,000. That was much larger than the 4,000 drop in jobs in 2008, the year that GE first began to feel the effects of the global downturn.

Worst hit was the conglomerate's GE Capital lending unit, which saw profits crumble last year as credit dried up and its losses on loans gone bad soared in areas like commercial real estate and credit cards. GE Capital shed 25 percent of its work force to finish 2009 at about 55,000 employees, part of a company plan to significantly shrink the size of the division.

CT is the perfect example of how this should work. We have to have a balanced budget, we cannot simply run up the Visa.

So the Governor has a $1.5b shortfall to make up over the next two years to balance it. Since the state unions rejected his package to avoid layoffs...well the pink slips are streaming out of Hartford, and social programs are getting chopped.

Why can't the Fed's do something so simple?

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

which all means nothing without the time frame of when they started paying "no taxes" since that is the gist of this sidebar. Are we to assume the times you mention are in fact within that time frame?

Heads up from China. They have some interest in this matter.

China on debt/dollar

__________________
Jim